BinRat55 said:Oh man I don't understand!!
Corner Brook - 83
Grand Falls/Windsor - 133
St John's - 308
Gander - Diddly.
The Methodology - POST LIVING DIFFERENTIAL
The Post Living Differential (PLD) methodology includes the following elements:
1. The intent of PLD is to stabilize the overall cost of living of Canadian Forces (CF) members and their families residing in Canada to a maximum not exceeding the National Capital Region (NCR) cost of living, namely the difference between the NCR cost of living and the cost of living in the PLD area.
2. A PLD area is, as determined by Department of National Defence (DND) in examining local circumstances, a location within the boundaries of a CF place of duty in Canada and may include a zone within a large metropolitan region (e.g., Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal) and surrounding vicinity.
3. The cost of living will be based on a representative CF household defined as:
a. gross income based on the average CF salary; and
b. family size as determined from the CF personnel records or periodic surveys of CF members. Current representative family size of three persons is derived from the 1998 CF Household Survey.
4. The household expenditure pattern, including the category weightings, will be based on the Canadian average for a household of similar income and family size, as described in the Statistics Canada Family Expenditure Survey (FAMEX).
5. Cost of living differences will be determined by the pricing of a representative selection of the items in the FAMEX and any additional items determined by DND as being necessary to meet the CF requirement. As a minimum, the data collected and representative items priced will provide sufficient indication of spatial differences in expenditure by the representative household in the following categories:
a. income tax - the total combined federal and provincial income tax paid annually;
b. transportation - total annual cost;
c. rent for renters and mortgage interest for homeowners;
d. property (real estate) tax for homeowners;
e. home maintenance cost for homeowners;
f. household/renter insurance;
h. goods and services, to include:
(1) food items (consumed at home and away from home);
(3) household items, including furniture;
(4) personal care;
(5) medical and dental care;
(6) domestic services, including child-care;
(7) recreation; and
(8 ) alcohol and tobacco.
i. expenditure on sales tax, if not included in the pricing of relevant items; and
j. miscellaneous items, to include expenditures not included elsewhere (e.g., education costs) and savings and investments.
6. Homeowner costs will be based on:
a. the home size indicated by the Canadian average expenditure profile;
b. home purchases for the last 12 months (12 months may be expanded for locations where there is insufficient real estate market activity for meaningful analysis);
c. the rolling average interest rate for a five-year closed mortgage; and
d. a 20% down-payment.
7. PLD rates will be calculated annually using the current year data and the NCR, computing the differentials between location costs and the NCR costs, and adding an increment to offset the income tax paid on the PLD allowance. Data will be collected in the October to January period. New rates will be implemented with the tentative effective date of 1 April.
8. The income tax increment included in the calculated PLD rate will be based on the estimated marginal tax determined from using the second from lowest federal income tax rate, published by the Canada Revenue Agency, combined with the associated provincial tax rate excluding grants or surcharges.
9. A reduced PLD of 75% will be paid to a member sharing a principal residence with another CF member who is entitled to PLD. This provision also applies to service couples.
PO2FinClk said:Perhpas you mean to say that failing to see the results of each assesment you cannot identify a pattern? As from my perspective it is quite logical.
MikeH said:Hi I'm a reservist on class "C" cpl 4 on work up for TF108.I've read the whole thread but kinda confused what is the PLD amount for Edmonton or whats it going to be?I have a wife and one kid. I hope I qualify for the PLD I'm still waiting to here back from my W.O. The PLD would help I took a big pay cut to come on work up so anything would help.The housing in Edmonton sucks my rent went up $400 in December HoHoHo! Any info would be appreciated thx.
Mistake said:To start with, as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals like someone posted from Calgary does.
And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.
As a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals like someone posted from Calgary does.
And I don't qualify for accommodations like a reg force CPL would.
And then to top it all off CBI 205.45 states that I don't qualify for PLD simply because I am a reservist. This is ridiculous. Why is it that everyone else should either make more money or enjoy subsidized living??? How is my burden (and MikeH's) any less? Thats the $232 question. I'd love to hear from a DND policy dude on this one.
Cheers,Regarding the rationale the differential treatment of Reservists, the CDS stated that a Reservist who accepts a voluntary call-out in an area where he has chosen to reside does not experience the cost of living increase that a Reservist posted into a PLDA must contend with. The CDS concluded that the current system compensates Reservists for costs where the CF requires them to be in higher costs area.
Mistake said:as a Cls C reservist from a unit in Edmonton I don't qualify for TD or meals like someone posted from Calgary does.
CDN Aviator said:If you are a reservist from edmonton on Class C service in edmonton, why would you need military accomodation , dont you already live somewhere. And if by your statement you mean you should et free accomodation, well that RegF corporal pays for his quarters so...
Gunner said:It's not based on whether you are a Reservist, it is based on whether you were moved at government expense (eg a posting). You live and work in Edmonton as a civilian and you have accepted a contract to work with the military in Edmonton. Remember that PLD is designed to minimize the effect on families moving from lost cost areas to high cost areas to meet the needs of the service. You have not been moved at government expense and you are not entitled to PLD. You and the other Reservists have not been "posted" to Edmonton for 1-08.
Mistake said:Also, in response to this comment;
Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point. The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region). Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base. The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.
Mistake said:Yes of course I have a place to live, and so does MikeH, that's not the point. The point is that we are forced to pay rents which are painfully higher than elsewhere in Canada (even higher than in the all important capital region). Not only do we have to pay them but we qualify for neither PLD nor the highly subsidized accommodations on base. The simple fact is that of the several thousand personnel employed at the Edmonton Garrison the only people, to the best of my knowledge, that receive neither PLD nor subsidized living are me and Mike and the few dozen other reservists from Edmonton.
Mistake said:And lastly to respond to Gunner's posting;
Fundamentally it is based solely on the fact that Im a reservist.
Mistake said:If you read 205.45(4) and 205.45(5) you'd see that the only criteria necessary to qualify RegF personnel is that their primary residence is located within the PLDA. Contrastingly, the reservist must be relocated at public expense in order to qualify. I can see no reasonable justification to discriminate between the two.
Mistake said:Take for instance the theoretical example of an Edmontonian who joined a RegF unit in Edmonton. That person would automatically qualify for PLD regardless of the fact that they already 'had a place to live,' and were not forced into this high cost environment.
Mistake said:Regardless of what the stated goal of the PLD policy is, it is clear that it is meant to simply balance out the inherent regional disparities resulting from varied cost of living across the country. PLD has been instituted to allow everyone in the CF to enjoy the same standard of living by topping up our pay so that we can all enjoy the same REAL income.
Mistake said:My complaint is not that the regulations are being adhered to improperly, but that the regulations themselves are discriminatory. I realize that I don't qualify and why I don't qualify, what Im saying is that the reasoning is unjust. And if you read ID: FIN-8290-5321 (at Gunners link select Post Living Differential) you'll see that the CFGB agrees.
"the Board found that CBI 205.45(5) and (6) results in unequal treatment between Reservists for no cause, and as such, the Board recommended that the regulation be amended to extend this benefit to all Reservists serving on a full-time basis in a PLDA."
The quote given by Gunner is actually the CDS rejecting the Boards recommendations. Unlike this seemingly arbitrary decision I'd say in this case my frustration is fairly justified.